Partly allowed

Manita & Ors. v. Lal Chand & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Aug 2012FAO/5733/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a motor accident case involving a deceased professional driver. The Court corrected the income assessment to minimum wages, awarded future prospects, funeral, and transportation expenses, leading to a modification of the award.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to `10,14,500/- with interest at 6% from date of petition till realization; appeal partly allowed.

Manita & Ors. Vs Lal Chand & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.5733 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.5733 of 2011

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: August 27, 2012

SMT. MANITA & OTHERS

...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

LAL CHAND & OTHERS

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL.

¶12

Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No

¶13

PRESENT: MR.SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT.

¶14

MR. RAJNEESH CHADWAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2.

¶15

MS. VANDANA MALHOTRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3.

¶16

M.JEYAPAUL, J.(ORAL)

¶17

The claimants who are the appellants herein challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶18

Deceased Yogesh Kumar died in a motor accident leaving behind his widow, two minor children and his parents.

¶19

3,. The driving licence to drive heavy motor vehicle which was taken as on 7.11.2008, was produced as Ex.P1. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the decease at `3600/-.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal had not assessed the income of the professional driver in terms of the minimum wages fixed by the State for a skilled labourer. No amount was awarded towards transportation expenses. Both for the funeral

¶21

FAO No.5733 of 2011

¶22

-2-

¶23

expenses and loss of consortium, only a sum of `10,000/- was awarded. Nothing was awarded towards future prospects, it is further contended.

¶24

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondentinsurance company would submit that the Tribunal having property adverted to the entire materials on record rightly assessed the loss of dependency of the claimants.

¶25

On a perusal of the records it is found that the claimants have come forward with a certificate Ex.P5 alleged to have been issued by PW2 to vouchsafe the payment of salary of `8000/- per month. But the Tribunal rightly rejected the salary certificate Ex.P5 as nothing was produced to establish that deceased Yogesh Kumar was employed in Kehariya Freight Carrier, Jodhpur. Neither attendance register nor any salary bill raised by the said concern was produced to convince the Court that deceased Yogesh Kumar was in fact employed by the said concern.

¶26

But Ex.P1 the driving licence of deceased Yogesh Kumar obtained on 7.11.2008 would go to show that the deceased had obtained licence way-back in the year 2008 for driving heavy motor vehicle also. It is found from Ex.P1 that deceased Yogesh Kumar was born on 15.8.1983. Therefore, at the time of accident which took place on 26.5.2010, he was 27 years old. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of '17'.

¶27

The deceased would have earned not less than 5000/- being a professional driver. He had died at the age of 27 years. 30% income will have to be added towards future prospects. Further, a sum of 5000/towards funeral expenses and a sum of `5000/- towards transportation of the

¶28

FAO No.5733 of 2011

¶29

-3-

¶30

dead body will have to be awarded.

¶31

In the result, a sum of 9,94,500/- (5000+30% thereof=6500x12=78,000 x 3/4=58500 x 17=9,94,500/-), a sum of 10,000/- towards of consortium, a sum of 5000/- towards funeral expenses and a sum of 5000/- towards transportation, in aggregate, a sum of 10,14,500/- with interest @ 6% for the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization is awarded as compensation.

¶32

With the above modification in the quantum of compensation,

¶33

the appeal is partly allowed.

¶34

August 27, 2012 ( M.JEYAPAUL ) Gulati JUDGE

Manita & Ors. v. Lal Chand & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manita & Ors. v. Lal Chand & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kapoor & Kapoor Knit-Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vikas Kapoor & Ors.

M/S Kapoor & Kapoor Knit-Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vikas Kapoor and Ors.

Prem Singh Syal & Ors. Vs Sonica Malhotra & Ors.

Kuldeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Technocrats Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs Patan Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.

Ultimate Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Frazer Foods India Pvt. Ltd.